Patent Application 18102174 - COMPONENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD - Rejection
Patent Application 18102174 - COMPONENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
Title: COMPONENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
Application Information
- Invention Title: COMPONENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
- Application Number: 18102174
- Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-01-27T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-01-27T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 700
- National Sub-Class: 254000
- Examiner Employee Number: 101062
- Art Unit: 2419
- Tech Center: 2400
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 8
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0012197đ
- US 0151452đ
- US 0041840đ
- US 0002194đ
Office Action Text
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 1/27/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2023, 5/16/2023, 2/6/2024, 5/5/2024 & 3/4/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 recites âa system for robot data stream management, comprising: a stream merge module, a system specification module and a calibration moduleâ for performing functions as recited in the claim. Applicant's specification fails to disclose any structure for these modules. However, [0065] of applicantâs specification discloses a component management system that can be executed on processing units such as a CPU, GPU, TPU or microprocessor. As such, the modules that implement the component management system (i.e. the stream merge module, the system specification module and the calibration module) can be purely software per se. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant's system of claim 12 is software and does not include any hardware. Software does not fall within at least one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), and therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter that is not patent eligible subject manner (see MPEP §2106.03).
Claims 13-20 recite further features and/or functions of the system for robot data management without specifying any hardware for the stream merge module, the system specification module and the calibration module. Therefore, these claims are also interpreted as being implemented using software per se and directed towards non-statutory subject matter that are not patent eligible subject manner (see MPEP §2106.03).
Claim 13 recites âa user interfaceâ performing functions as recited in the claim. Applicant's specification fails to disclose any structure for the user interface. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a user interface is generally understood to be software that allows a user to interact with a system. While physical input/output devices like keyboards and monitors are hardware, the user interface itself is generally a software element that defines how users interact with that hardware. [00104] of the applicantâs specification discloses a user interface can be a browser, an application, an API or a CLI, all of which are generally known as software per se to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant's system of Claim 13 is software per se and does not include any hardware. Software is not one of four statutory categories, and therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter that is not patent eligible subject manner (see MPEP §2106.03).
Claim 14 recites âa serializerâ performing functions as recited in the claim. Applicant's specification fails to disclose any structure for the serializer. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a serializer is generally understood to be software that converts data objects into byte streams. [00105] of the applicantâs specification discloses serializer formats can include protobuf, YAML and JSON, all considered formats implemented in software. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant's system of Claim 14 is software per se and does not include any hardware. Software is not one of four statutory categories, and therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter that is not patent eligible subject manner (see MPEP §2106.03).
Claim 14 recites âa message transport protocolâ performing functions as recited in the claim. Applicant's specification fails to disclose any structure for the message transport protocol. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a message transport protocol is generally understood to be a type of software defining rules and formats for how messages are exchanged between different components in a network. [00106] of the applicantâs specification discloses message transport protocols can include TCP, UDP, WebRTC and RTP, all considered protocols implemented in software. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant's system of Claim 14 is software per se and does not include any hardware. Software is not one of four statutory categories, and therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter and is not patent eligible subject manner (see MPEP §2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless â(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 & 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics, Pages 158-163, 8/4/2019)(herein after âChenâ).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a method, comprising: "providing a set of component streams, each generated by a component of a set of components connected to a robot (Fig 1 & Section IV-B, 1st paragraph disclose data collection each camera from a set of 9 cameras that are connected to a MARS Mapper robot.),
to a host system of the robot (Section II, 3rd paragraph discloses a single Intel i7 CPU used as a host system to collect data from 9 cameras, 2 lidars, an IMU and odometry data.);
determining a component state change within the set of components (Fig 1 & Section IV-B, 2nd & 3rd paragraph disclose the MARS Mapper moving around which would lead to a state change in the images captured by the 9 cameras, 2 lidars, the IMU and the odometry data.);
responsive to the component state change: determining a calibration specification for each component of the set of components (Fig. 1 & Section III-A disclose calibration specifications for components including Stereo Cameras, Non-overlapping cameras, 3D Lidar to camera, 3D Lidar to 3D Lidar and Tracking System to camera.);
determining an updated calibration for the robot based on the set of calibration specifications (Fig 1 & Sections III-B, 3rd to 6th paragraphs disclose a method for performing global calibration for the MARS Mapper robot based on a set of calibration specifications from a plurality of sensors.);
and providing the updated calibration to the host system (Table 1 and Section IV-B, 3rd paragraph disclose accuracy results based on global calibration updates being provided to the single Intel i7 CPU on the MARS Mapper robot. Section IV-B, 2nd paragraph discloses an Optitrack tracking system for providing global calibration updates to the single Intel i7 CPU on the MARS Mapper robot.)
wherein the host system processes subsequent component streams from the set of components using the updated calibration (Table 1 and Section IV-B, 2nd & 3rd paragraph disclose accuracy results from the MARS Mapper robot using the single Intel i7 CPU to process subsequent camera data from a set of 9 cameras using the global calibration updates from the Optitrack tracking system.).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen disclose wherein the updated calibration is determined contemporaneously with robot operation (Fig. 1 & Section IV-B, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs disclose a MARS Mapping robot moving around while the Optitrack tracking system is simultaneously determining and providing global calibration updates.).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the calibration specification for each component identifies an intrinsic submodel from a set of candidate intrinsic submodels for the respective component (Fig 1 & Section IV, 1st paragraph discloses a MARS Mapper robot using intrinsic parameters from component cameras. Section III-A disclose a set of calibration submodels for Stereo-Camera, Non-Overlapping Camera, 3D Lidar to Camera and 3D Lidar to 3D Lidar calibration using the intrinsic parameters from the component cameras.),
wherein the identified intrinsic submodel is used to determine intrinsic calibration equations for the respective component (Section III-A, paragraphs 4-8 disclose intrinsic calibration equations for non-overlapping camera pair components.),
wherein the intrinsic calibration equations are included in a calibration set equation set used to determine the updated calibration (Fig 2 & Section III-B, 4th to 6th paragraphs disclose use of component pairwise calibration equations to perform equations for global calibration updates.).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the component state change comprises an added component, (Section III-B, 1st paragraph discloses a pair of sensors, sensor A and sensor B with an added sensor, sensor C.) wherein
the updated calibration is determined based on a calibration specification for the added component (Section III-B, 2nd to 6th paragraphs discloses a global calibration based on the additional Sensor C (and in general any number of additional sensors).).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses wherein providing the set of component streams, determining the component state change, and determining the updated calibration are processes that are atomic, execute asynchronously, and are non-blocking (Section II, 3rd paragraph & Section IV-B disclose real data results from experiments with a MARS Mapper robot, moving around leading to state changes, with 9 camera components and an Optitrack tracking system remotely fixed to a ceiling providing global calibration updates. These results demonstrate the performance of component image streams from 9 cameras, based on state changes from a moving robot, and global calibration updates from a tracking system, all operating in an atomic, asynchronous and non-blocking fashion.).
Regarding Claim 10, The method of Claim 1, wherein each component comprises a sensor package (Fig 1 and Section II, 1st & 2nd paragraphs disclose a MARS Mapper robot is a sensor platform where each component is mounted to the MARS Mapper robot platform as a sensor.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2015/0002194)(herein after âHsuâ).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the method of Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose wherein each calibration specification is received from a driver for the respective component.
However, Hsu teaches wherein each calibration specification is received from a driver for the respective component (Fig 1 & [0015] disclose calibration signals received by receiver comparators 121 & 122 from a driver for each respective component (driver 111 for receiver comparator 121 and driver 112 for receiver comparator 122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, wherein each calibration specification is received from a driver for the respective component as taught by Hsu. The motivation to do so would be to enable sending of a plurality of calibration signals with individually adjustable signal strengths.
Claim 6 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Zinkovsky et al. (US 2012/0151452)(herein after âZinkovskyâ).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses the method of Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose wherein the set of component streams is provided to the host system using a serializer and a message transport protocol, wherein the serializer and the message transport protocol are selected from a set of supported serializers and message transport protocols, respectively.
However, Zinkovsky teaches wherein the set of component streams is provided to the host system using a serializer (Fig 1 & [0026] disclose a set of component streams 118a to 118n from a plurality of user sessions 104 to 108 provided to a network 150 using a serializer 120.] and
a message transport protocol (Fig 1 & [0029] disclose a network transport protocol 122.),
wherein the serializer and the message transport protocol are selected from a set of supported serializers and message transport protocols, respectively (Fig 1 & [0026] disclose that different serializers can be accommodated for different processes. Fig 1 & [0029] discloses that network transport protocols may be selected from either custom or standard network transport protocols such as TCP, UDP, HTTP or SOAP/REST.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, wherein the set of component streams is provided to the host system using a serializer and a message transport protocol, wherein the serializer and the message transport protocol are selected from a set of supported serializers and message transport protocols, respectively, as taught by Zinkovsky. The motivation to do so would be to enable simple, reliable and ordered data transmission between a set of user sessions and a network.
Claim 7, 12, 15-17, 19 & 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Zandan et al. (âHow Merging Companies Will Give Rise to Unified Data Streamsâ, https://www.confluent.io/blog/merging-data-streams/ , Naveen Nandan, 6/23/2020)(herein after âZandanâ).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses the method of Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose wherein the set of component streams are merged into a unified stream, wherein providing the component stream to the host system comprises sending the unified stream to the host system.
However, Nandan teaches wherein the set of component streams are merged into a unified stream (âWhy unify data streams?â section, 2nd figure & paragraphs 4-6 disclose merging data streams from 3 organizations into a unified stream.),
wherein providing the component stream to the host system comprises sending the unified stream to the host system (âWhy unify data streams?â section, 2nd figure & paragraphs 4-6 disclose providing a merged data stream to a network for a merged set of organizations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, wherein the set of component streams are merged into a unified stream, wherein providing the component stream to the host system comprises sending the unified stream to the host system, as taught by Nandan. The motivation to do so would be to enable analytics to be provided on a single stream from multiple organizations that have merged without operational disruption.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen discloses a system for robot data stream management (Fig 1 & Section IV-B, 1st & 2nd paragraphs disclose data collection from 9 cameras that are connected to a MARS Mapper robot, and management of the 9 cameras through calibration.), comprising:
a system specification module, configured to determine a set of calibration specifications for a set of components connected to the robot (Section III-A disclose calibration specifications for components including Stereo Cameras, Non-overlapping cameras, 3D Lidar to camera, 3D Lidar to 3D Lidar and Tracking System to camera. Fig 1 & Section IV-B, 1st & 2nd paragraphs disclose data collection of calibration specifications from 9 cameras that are connected to the MARS Mapper robot.); and
a calibration module, configured to determine an updated calibration based on the set of calibration specifications (Section IV-B discloses use of an Optitrack tracking system that determines calibration for the 9 cameras.),
wherein a host system of the robot processes subsequent component streams from the set of connected components using the updated calibration (Section II, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs disclose a single Intel i7 CPU used as a host processor for a MARS Mapper robot. Table 1 and Section IV-B, 3rd paragraph disclose accuracy results from the MARS Mapper robot using the single Intel i7 CPU to process subsequent camera data from a set of cameras using global calibration.).
Chen fails to discloses a stream merge module configured to merge a set of component data streams, each generated by a different component connected to a robot, into a unified stream;
However, Nandan teaches a stream merge module configured to merge a set of component data streams, each generated by a different component connected to a robot, into a unified stream; (âWhy unify data streams?â section, 2nd figure & paragraphs 4-6 disclose an Apache KafkaÂŽ platform for merging data streams from 3 organizations into a unified stream.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system for robot data stream management, comprising: a system specification module, configured to determine a set of calibration specifications for a set of components connected to the robot; and a calibration module, configured to determine an updated calibration based on the set of calibration specifications, wherein a host system of the robot processes subsequent component streams from the set of connected components using the updated calibration., as disclosed by Chen, further comprising: a stream merge module configured to merge a set of component data streams, each generated by a different component connected to a robot, into a unified stream;, as taught by Nandan. The motivation to do so would be to enable analytics to be provided on a single stream from multiple organizations that have merged without operational disruption.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Zandan disclose the system of Claim 12.
Chen further discloses wherein each calibration specification identifies an intrinsic submodel for each of a set of intrinsic parameters for the respective component (Fig 1 & Section IV, 1st paragraph discloses a MARS Mapper robot using intrinsic parameters from component cameras.),
wherein each intrinsic submodel is selected from a set of candidate intrinsic submodels for the respective intrinsic parameter (Section III-A discloses intrinsic submodels selected for different pairwise calibration parameters including stereo-camera, non-overlapping camera pairs, 3D Lidar to camera and 3D Lidar to 3D lidar parameters.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Claim 12, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, wherein each calibration specification identifies an intrinsic submodel for each of a set of intrinsic parameters for the respective component, wherein each intrinsic submodel is selected from a set of candidate intrinsic submodels for the respective intrinsic parameter, as further taught by Chen. The motivation to do so would be leverage internal characteristics of cameras in performing calibration.
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Zandan disclose the system of Claim 15.
Chen further discloses wherein the calibration module uses equations associated with the identified intrinsic submodels when determining the updated calibration (Section III-A, paragraphs 4-8 disclose intrinsic calibration equations for a non-overlapping camera pair component. Fig 2 & Section III-B, 3rd paragraph disclose use of component pairwise calibration results to perform a global calibration.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Claim 15, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, wherein the calibration module uses equations associated with the identified intrinsic submodels when determining the updated calibration, as further disclosed by Chen. The motivation to do so would be to leverage internal characteristics of cameras in determining a global calibration.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Zandan disclose the system of Claim 12.
Chen further discloses wherein the component comprises a sensor package (Fig 1 and Section II, 1st & 2nd paragraphs disclose a MARS Mapper robot is a sensor platform where each component is mounted to the MARS Mapper robot platform as a sensor.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Claim 12, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, wherein the component comprises a sensor package, as further disclosed by Chen. The motivation to do so would be include camera sensors as part of a robot system.
Regarding Claim 19, Chen in view of Zandan disclose the system of Claim 12.
Chen further discloses wherein the calibration module is remote from the system specification module and the host system (Section IV-B, 2nd paragraph discloses an Optitrack tracking system fixed to a truss on a ceiling, remote from a robot, that performs calibration for 9 cameras on the robot. Fig 1, Section II, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and Section III-A disclose a sensor platform that is part of a MARS Mapper robot, remote from the ceiling, that includes a single Intel i7 CPU used as a host system to collect data and provide calibration specifications for 9 cameras.).
Zandan further teaches wherein the calibration module is remote from the stream merge module (âWhy unify data streams?â section, 2nd figure & paragraphs 4-6 disclose an Apache KafkaÂŽ platform for merging data streams from 3 organizations into a unified stream. The Apache KafkaÂŽ platform could be at any location remote from a calibration module.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Claim 12, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, wherein the calibration module is remote from the stream merge module, as further taught by Zandan, and the system specification module and the host system, as further disclosed by Chen. The motivation to do so would be to have a tracking system with a plurality of cameras located remotely from a robot that can wirelessly perform global calibration for the robot.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen in view of Zandan discloses the system of Claim 12.
Chen further discloses wherein the stream merge module, the system specification module, and the calibration module are atomic processes and execute asynchronously. (Section II, 3rd paragraph & Section IV-B disclose real data results from experiments with a MARS Mapper robot with 9 camera components providing system specifications and an Optitrack tracking system remotely fixed to a ceiling providing global calibration updates. These results demonstrate the performance of modules providing system specifications from 9 cameras, that could incorporate an Apache KafkaÂŽ stream merge module, and a module for performing global calibration updates from a tracking system all operating in an atomic, asynchronous and non-blocking fashion.).
Claim 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Memon et al. (US 2019/0012197)(herein after âMemonâ).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses the method of Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose wherein the host system interacts with observations within a component stream of the set of component streams using an API specific to the respective component.
However, Memon teaches wherein the host system interacts with observations within a component stream of the set of component streams using an API specific to the respective component (Fig 1 & [0022] disclose a host system that interacts with applications through respective APIs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, wherein the host system interacts with observations within a component stream of the set of component streams using an API specific to the respective component, as taught by Memon. The motivation to do so would be to simplify how application software components interact host system hardware components.
Claim 11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Cella et al. (US 2019/0041840)(herein after âCellaâ).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen discloses the method of Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by drivers of the set of components to a user; and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components.
However, Cella teaches further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by drivers of the set of components to a user (Fig 151 & [1177-1178] disclose a haptic user interface device for providing haptic stimuli to a user based on data collected in an industrial environment. Fig 23 & [0062] disclose that a data collection architecture may include driver APIs to facilitate communication in a network.);
and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components (Fig 151 & [1177-1178] disclose the haptic user interface device may receive results from analysis of data collected from a plurality of sensors. Fig 23 & [0062] disclose that a data collection architecture may include driver APIs to facilitate communication in a network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by drivers of the set of components to a user; and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components, as taught by Cella. The motivation to do so would be to provide physical or audible feedback and stimuli to a user based on data collection and analysis from a surrounding sensor network.
Claim 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Zandan et al. (https://www.confluent.io/blog/merging-data-streams/ , Naveen Nandan, 6/23/2020)(herein after âZandanâ) and further in view of Cella et al. (US 2019/0041840)(herein after âCellaâ).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Zandan discloses the system of Claim 12.
Chen in view of Zandan fails to disclose further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by a driver for a component of the set of components to a user; and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components.
However, Cella teaches further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by a driver for a component of the set of components to a user (Fig 151 & [1177-1178] disclose a haptic user interface device for providing haptic stimuli to a user based on data collected in an industrial environment. Fig 23 & [0062] disclose that a data collection architecture may include driver APIs to facilitate communication in a network.);
and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components (Fig 151 & [1177-1178] disclose the haptic user interface device may receive results from analysis of data collected from a plurality of sensors. Fig 23 & [0062] disclose that a data collection architecture may include driver APIs to facilitate communication in a network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Chen, further comprising a user interface, configured to: present device events emitted by drivers of the set of components to a user; and receive user-specified stream configurations that are sent to a driver for a component of the set of components, as taught by Cella. The motivation to do so would be to provide physical or audible feedback and stimuli to a user based on data collection and analysis from a surrounding sensor network.
Claim 14 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Zandan et al. (https://www.confluent.io/blog/merging-data-streams/ , Naveen Nandan, 6/23/2020)(herein after âZandanâ) and further in view of Zinkovsky et al. (US 2012/0151452)(herein after âZinkovskyâ).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Zandan discloses the system of Claim 12.
Chen in view of Zandan fails to disclose further comprising: a serializer selected from a set of serializers and configured to serialize the component data streams; and a message transport protocol selected from a set of message transport protocols and configured to transport the serialized component data streams from the components to the host system of the robot; wherein the serializer and message transport protocol are not mutually dependent.
However, Zinkovsky teaches further comprising: a serializer selected from a set of serializers and configured to serialize the component data streams (Fig 1 & [0026] disclose a serializer 120 configured to serialize a set of component streams 118a to 118n from a plurality of user sessions 104 to 108 provided to a network 150.); and
a message transport protocol selected from a set of message transport protocols and configured to transport the serialized component data streams from the components to the host system of the robot (Fig 1 & [0029] disclose a network transport protocol 122, that may be selected from a set of message transport protocols such as TCP, UDP, HTTP and SOAP/REST, configured to transport component data streams 118a through 118n to a host network 150.);
wherein the serializer and message transport protocol are not mutually dependent (Fig. 1 & [0026 & 2209) disclose independent message serializer and network transport modules and function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 12, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, further comprising: a serializer selected from a set of serializers and configured to serialize the component data streams; and a message transport protocol selected from a set of message transport protocols and configured to transport the serialized component data streams from the components to the host system of the robot; wherein the serializer and message transport protocol are not mutually dependent, as taught by Zinkovsky. The motivation to do so would be to enable simple, reliable and ordered data transmission between a set of user sessions and a network.
Claim 18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (âHeterogeneous Multi-sensor Calibration based on Graph Optimizationâ, Hongyu Chen & Soren Schwertfeger, IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 8/24/2019)(herein after âChenâ) in view of Zandan et al. (https://www.confluent.io/blog/merging-data-streams/ , Naveen Nandan, 6/23/2020)(herein after âZandanâ) and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 107172400)(herein after âHuâ).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Zandan disclose the system of Claim 12,
Chen in view of Zandan fails to disclose wherein the stream merge module comprises a stream polling module.
However, Hu teaches wherein the stream merge module comprises a stream polling module (Page 2, Section 1 discloses a 32-channel picture polling device that includes two layer merging and selection modules.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Claim 12, as disclosed by Chen in view of Zandan, wherein the stream merge module comprises a stream polling module, as taught by Hu. The motivation to do so would be to provide a simple and controlled update frequency for camera image calibration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Walavalker et al. (US 12192276) discloses a Delivery of Log Records to Stateless Clients.
Paluch et al. (US 11080086) discloses Reactive Transaction Management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examinerâs supervisor, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419